Study: hostile sexism is a predictor of Trump support

[Commodus]

Couldn't find this earlier, but Vox is breathing new life into it.

Hostility toward women is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support

Hate to say it, but this strikes me as logical. Trump's flagrant misogyny appeals to that stereotypical angry white male who fools himself into thinking that feminism is about superiority, not equality, and longs for a return to the 'good old days' when he could treat women as sex objects (but of course, women still had to preserve their sexual purity for him). And of course, the scariest thing in the world to that man is a feminist woman with political power, aka Clinton.

Same thing with racists and homophobes. In all cases, they don't know what real equality looks like, so they misinterpret any concessions to women or minorities as attempts by those groups to assert dominance.

Interestingly, so-called benevolent sexism (the notion that women are frail, innocent beings needing protection) isn't a good predicting factor. I suspect that it's because many of those people are smart enough to see that feminism isn't a threat, and are sometimes fine with Clinton even if they're condescending to the women in their lives. Basically: it's harder to like Trump if you aren't a hateful person.

 

[MajinCry]

'Twas something that was a trend on Reddit; the guys that said horrid shit to women over on the 2XChromosomes forum, were avid supporters on TheDonald forum.

It's no surprise, really. People will vote for lads that best represent them. If people support someone that is a self-admitted molester, a rapist and hardcore racist, it'd be odd for them to not sympathize with the dude's acts.

'Course, there is the whole Clinton debacle, but Hillary is damage control at this point. Trump is just that terrible of a homo sapiens.

 

[Blue_Max]

Meh... this is just Sony/Feig/Ghostbusters all over again. "If you don't support us, you're a woman-hating misogynist!!"

The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.

 

[feralkid]

Meh... this is just Sony/Feig/Ghostbusters all over again. "If you don't support us, you're a woman-hating misogynist!!"

The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.

I did not know that you were qualified to speak for the entire world.

And who would have guessed you'd be the first to object to anything remotely related to gender equality?

 

[Blue_Max]

And who would have guessed you'd be the first to object to anything remotely related to gender equality?

Case in point. Beautiful timing!

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh... this is just Sony/Feig/Ghostbusters all over again. "If you don't support us, you're a woman-hating misogynist!!"

The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.

It's unsurprising that you, of all people, would label them as "false". You display misogyny as if it's a badge of honor.

 

[1sikbITCH]

The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.

That's obvious.

 

[Commodus]

Meh... this is just Sony/Feig/Ghostbusters all over again. "If you don't support us, you're a woman-hating misogynist!!"

The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.

I like how wildly you contorted things to tie it back to Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters. Nursing insecurities much?

No, this is not what I'm arguing, nor is Vox, the Washington Post or the lion's share of people on the left. It's entirely possible to support Trump without being a misogynist. You're turning a blind eye to misogyny for the sake of other priorities, but you're not necessarily a misogynist yourself. The argument is solely that hostile sexism is a good indication of whether or not someone is a Trump supporter.

Besides, you're not exactly helping your case with your response... it's like a line-for-line validation of the study's findings.

 

[Roflmouth]

I like how wildly you contorted things to tie it back to Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters. Nursing insecurities much?

No, this is not what I'm arguing, nor is Vox, the Washington Post or the lion's share of people on the left. It's entirely possible to support Trump without being a misogynist.

I'm sure Trump supporters all over are breathing a sigh of relief that you've validated their political opinions like this.

The argument is solely that hostile sexism is a good indication of whether or not someone is a Trump supporter.

"We've only called them sexist 14324324394324532432 times, and it hasn't worked, but surely this time it will!!!!!!!111122222"

 

[hal2kilo]

I did not know that you were qualified to speak for the entire world.

And who would have guessed you'd be the first to object to anything remotely related to gender equality?

Like a moth to a flame.

 

[Atreus21]

Couldn't find this earlier, but Vox is breathing new life into it.

Hostility toward women is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support

From the link.

The political scientists used a four-question survey to determine sexist attitudes, asking if people agreed with the following statements:

1. Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
2. Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.
3. Feminists are not actually seeking for women to have more power than men.
4. Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.

I hardly classify people who answer these questions in a way that is suspicious of feminists in particular as "hostile sexists."

And the irony is that the reflex in progressives to apply labels like this to anyone they don't like is precisely the progenitor of such suspicion in the first place.

Hate to say it, but this strikes me as logical. Trump's flagrant misogyny appeals to that stereotypical angry white male who fools himself into thinking that feminism is about superiority, not equality, and longs for a return to the 'good old days' when he could treat women as sex objects (but of course, women still had to preserve their sexual purity for him). And of course, the scariest thing in the world to that man is a feminist woman with political power, aka Clinton.

There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made about feminists liking equality insofar as it benefits women and no further. I notice women don't complain much about underrepresentation in the garbage-collecting or coal-mining professions.

Classifying men or women who hold those opinions as longing for a return to the good old days when men could grope women openly sounds more like hostility and vicious dishonesty than any definition that Vox tested for.

 

[fskimospy]

From the link.

I hardly classify people who answer these questions in a way that is suspicious of feminists in particular as "hostile sexists."

There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made about feminists liking equality insofar as it benefits women and no further. I notice women don't complain much about underrepresentation in the garbage-collecting or coal-mining professions.

Classifying men or women who hold those opinions as longing for a return to the good old days when men could grope women openly sounds more like hostility and vicious dishonesty than any definition that Vox tested for.

Wait, you're saying someone who believes that women's efforts for equality are actually unreasonable demands that unfairly demonize men as part of a stealth campaign to overpower men in society is not an example of hostile sexism?

I mean...seriously?

 

[momeNt]

Wait, you're saying someone who believes that women's efforts for equality are actually unreasonable demands that unfairly demonize men as part of a stealth campaign to overpower men in society is not an example of hostile sexism?

I mean...seriously?

Holy strawman batman!!


Question:

Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.

what you said

women's efforts for equality are actually unreasonable demands that unfairly demonize men as part of a stealth campaign to overpower men in society

Did you intentionally make the question hostile, in order to argue with him on a little better foothold? Or do you see any opposition or skepticism to feminism's goals of equality as hostile?

 

[Indus]

The worst part is women supporting Trump want to repeal the 19th amendment.

Yes takes my rights away and make me a slave.. please Mein Fuhrer Trump.

 

[Atreus21]

Wait, you're saying someone who believes that women's efforts for equality...

Define equality before we proceed.

 

[fskimospy]

Holy strawman batman!!

Question:

what you said

Did you intentionally make the question hostile, in order to argue with him on a little better foothold? Or do you see any opposition or skepticism to feminism's goals of equality as hostile?

Strawman? What on earth are you talking about? I accurately represented what the questions said because he raised the ridiculous idea that people would answer these questions like that and somehow not be hostile sexists. What WOULD be a straw man is attempting to frame what I said as thinking 'any opposition or skepticism to feminism's goals of equality as hostile' though.

Let's look at these statements more closely and how they relate to what I said:

Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.

Women unfairly demonizing men? Check.

Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.

Equality is actually a stealth campaign to get more power than men? Check.

(presumably the last two should be answered negatively to equate with hostile sexism)

Feminists are not actually seeking for women to have more power than men.

Feminists attempting to overpower men in society? Check.

Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.

Feminists making unreasonable demands? Check.

I mean the people who designed this study presumably put a lot of thought into these statements and they seem to hit the nail on the head when it comes to hostile sexism. Can you maybe explain specifically, line by line, where you think the description is off?

 

[fskimospy]

Define equality before we proceed.

I'm sorry but that's not relevant to this discussion, equality is whatever the person participating in the study thought it was.

 

[Blue_Max]

Time Magazine (remember when that meant something?) says to question Hillary (at all) is an "attack on all women".
http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/

So.....mmmyeah. No credibility or accountability. Progressives being regressive - as usual.

 

[skull]

Couldn't find this earlier, but Vox is breathing new life into it.

Hostility toward women is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support

Hate to say it, but this strikes me as logical. Trump's flagrant misogyny appeals to that stereotypical angry white male who fools himself into thinking that feminism is about superiority, not equality, and longs for a return to the 'good old days' when he could treat women as sex objects (but of course, women still had to preserve their sexual purity for him). And of course, the scariest thing in the world to that man is a feminist woman with political power, aka Clinton.

Same thing with racists and homophobes. In all cases, they don't know what real equality looks like, so they misinterpret any concessions to women or minorities as attempts by those groups to assert dominance.

Interestingly, so-called benevolent sexism (the notion that women are frail, innocent beings needing protection) isn't a good predicting factor. I suspect that it's because many of those people are smart enough to see that feminism isn't a threat, and are sometimes fine with Clinton even if they're condescending to the women in their lives. Basically: it's harder to like Trump if you aren't a hateful person.

Wow you guys on P&N are such hypocrites if some right wing nut posted something similar in craziness you'd be all over him. Trumps a sleazeball sure but his supporters are just dumb hypocrites like hillary's not a bunch of misogynists. Hopefully this fbi thing pulls thru and some shit you know trumps done comes to light before the election so we can get rid of both these shit bricks.

 

[momeNt]

I mean the people who designed this study presumably put a lot of thought into these statements and they seem to hit the nail on the head when it comes to hostile sexism. Can you maybe explain specifically, line by line, where you think the description is off?

To put it simply, he questioned just how hostile that would make a person who answered the sexist response towards those questions. You, instead of actually arguing with him, re-stated the question, and asked him, are you REALLY sure that isn't hostile. Not actually arguing his point, but instead making a new argument.

That's a strawman.

His argument, was, is that really hostile, somebody who believes that they are, shouldn't have to change the question in order to refute that.

Yes, you're right, they put a lot of thought into the question. Don't ask me to defend it though, that was your job, you instead made a strawman.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm sorry but that's not relevant to this discussion, equality is whatever the person participating in the study thought it was.

Independent of the study's responses, I don't see the point in arguing if that's not clarified. You say that feminists only pursue equality, but depending on what you mean by equality I might agree or disagree. I think women already have complete equality in their claims to justice.

To the extent that feminists mean complete parity with men in all aspects of life, which I've heard one or two feminists support, that definition of equality is silly.

 

[Maxima1]

The pay gap is a myth. That's part of the reason why men are negative towards feminism. There are of course other reasons. That doesn't mean they're sexist.

 

[Commodus]

From the link.

I hardly classify people who answer these questions in a way that is suspicious of feminists in particular as "hostile sexists."

There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made about feminists liking equality insofar as it benefits women and no further. Classifying men or women who hold those opinions as longing for a return to the good old days when men could grope women openly sounds more like hostility and vicious dishonesty than any definition that Vox tested for.

It depends on how you answer the whole of the questions. If you say "true" to the first two and "false" to the last two... then yes, there's a good chance you're sexist. You probably see feminism as a power grab that must be stopped. If your answers are mixed, however, or you'd insist on more nuanced answers, that's more complicated.

I don't think you should ever blindly accept changes to gender relations. However, there's a big difference between an intelligent, considered analysis of gender balance and a knee-jerk "feminism bad!" response. The boring truth is that most feminists have a reasonable definition of equality: the same rights and career opportunities, equal pay for equal work, better representation in the media and a commitment to ending sexual harassment and assault (not just against women, but with an acknowledgment that it's primarily committed by men these days). And if there is overreach, we shouldn't be quick to cry "conspiracy!" before determining whether or not it's just a well-meaning but flawed initiative.

 

[fskimospy]

To put it simply, he questioned just how hostile that would make a person who answered the sexist response towards those questions. You, instead of actually arguing with him, re-stated the question, and asked him, are you REALLY sure that isn't hostile. Not actually arguing his point, but instead making a new argument.

That's a strawman.

That is not a straw man. A straw man is mischaracterizing someone's statement to make it easier to defeat. I was saying that his characterization of what answering those questions in a 'hostile' way meant was totally inaccurate.

His argument, was, is that really hostile, somebody who believes that they are, shouldn't have to change the question in order to refute that.

This is incorrect, I was simply accurately stating what answering those questions in the affirmative/negative depending on the question actually meant. Like I said, if you think otherwise then please feel free to explain how, specifically. I'm interested to hear how you think that agreeing with a statement that women's movement for equality is actually a campaign for special privileges is not hostile sexism or that how feminists' goal is to overpower men is not hostile sexism.

 

[momeNt]

That is not a straw man. A straw man is mischaracterizing someone's statement to make it easier to defeat. I was saying that his characterization of what answering those questions in a 'hostile' way meant was totally inaccurate.



This is incorrect, I was simply accurately stating what answering those questions in the affirmative/negative depending on the question actually meant. Like I said, if you think otherwise then please feel free to explain how, specifically. I'm interested to hear how you think that agreeing with a statement that women's movement for equality is actually a campaign for special privileges is not hostile sexism or that how feminists' goal is to overpower men is not hostile sexism.

They are pretty easily explained by a combination of A. being insulated from sexism, and B. being a skeptic.

If you are both of those things, that wouldn't make you a hostile sexist, just an unaware skeptic - and you'd have the same test answers.